| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | CN <cnliou9(at)fastmail(dot)fm>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Switching roles as an replacement of connection pooling tools |
| Date: | 2016-05-31 14:35:18 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwaJpOTvpmw6zFE7o26_=o90YQ6bOn-nGBw2=acq1QY2cg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> CN <cnliou9(at)fastmail(dot)fm> writes:
> > If command "SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION" is enhanced to accept two
> > additional arguments
> > PASSWORD <password>
> > , then a client simply establishes only one connection to server and do
> > jobs for a million roles.
>
> * Any session-level settings specified for the new role with ALTER
> USER SET don't get adopted.
> While you could imagine that specific applications might be okay with
> these things, they're pretty fatal for a general-purpose connection
> pooler; the first two in particular would be unacceptable security
> holes.
>
Is there a reason something "SET ROLE ... WITH SETTINGS" couldn't be
implemented?
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Achilleas Mantzios | 2016-05-31 14:37:38 | Re: Switching roles as an replacement of connection pooling tools |
| Previous Message | Andreas Joseph Krogh | 2016-05-31 14:34:53 | Re: Slides for PGCon2016; "FTS is dead ? Long live FTS !" |